Operator name:
0xA1EU
Explorer:
He does not have any contact sources of his own. and it’s been down for a long time. I request that his verified status be deleted. Thanks.
the last 10 thousand epochs have also down.
8 Likes
Great initiative. Thanks for proposing
2 Likes
It is necessary to weed out irresponsible operators
3 Likes
I agree with this proposal.
2 Likes
I think we should extend this proposal for all Inactive Verified operators not only 0xA1EU
According to the passed DAO proposal at Snapshot, loss of status can be by DAO vote or: “Operator score below 90% for 2 consecutive weeks (automatic loss of status)”
My take is: This should be decentralized. Any NO that has been below 90% for a consecutive 14 days (2 weeks) can be decertified as long as the community calls for it here. The loss of status is automatic as voted by the DAO; however the performance still needs to be verified by Blox, since there is no actual automation in place right now.
My medium-strong preference is that the community nominate an NO for loss of status if they were under 90% for 14 consecutive days; Blox verifies this; and if the verification bears out, they lose status, without an additional DAO snapshot vote required: “Automatic loss of status”
3 Likes
Will verify they are below 90% for 14 days and will remove their verified status if it is
1 Like
That’d need to be done with a separate proposal for each. Keep in mind it’s below 90% for a consecutive 14 days. If that’s the case, any community member could then open a proposal; Blox verify; and if the performance was below 90% for the last 14 consecutive days, they lose status. Just like in this proposal.
1 Like
Not sure I follow, you are for auto de-verification if score falls under 90 for 14 days or you think it should be proposed individually?
Both / either. For now there is no automation. I am saying that for other NOs, this same method here can be used: community nominates; Blox verifies; status is lost if verification bears out, without another DAO vote.
Since the DAO voted for automation, if that can be created at some point it’ll be useful. Still would need a manual checkpoint I think because you don’t want faulty automation to cause mass decert.
I’d rather Blox not being the center of this, I much rather have some community decision (automatic/ separate proposal) and we simply act upon it.
2 Likes
Are we ready to move towards a vote for this operator?
3 Likes
Yes, please!
I wonder how this will be reflected in the SSV explorer? Do we indicate this in a way? Is that even helpful? Maybe something for a later stage and worth a separate discussion.
Also, is it correct that a normal user has no easy way to verify that an operator is below 90% for 14 days, and we rely on data/triggers from the blox team?
Sorry, I’m a bit late for the discussion.
Thank you.
—Ben
2 Likes
Are we doing a separate vote or should it be automatic?
Also, I think we should send them a link to this discussion in case they want to comment
2 Likes
Apologies about the node being offline for so long and completely understand why this de-verification request has been raised.
It’s no excuse for the amount of time we were offline, it’s been a hectic couple months for us, our SSV nodes are monitored/handled by our interns who are only in 1 day a week and they been pulled into our core projects and other side projects.
We hope this hasn’t impacted SSV’s testnet trial too much and once again apologies for any disruption it’s caused.
0xA
2 Likes